/fa/ - Fashion

>>7584668
the small eyelets for me give the visual effect of making them look even longer and thinner than they already are

to the point that they look sort of odd

I like most Vibergs though

>>6256399
you and I have different definitions of cheap

mine is this one:
>Inexpensive because of inferior quality

I don't give two shits about the price tag but everything else so far looks cheaply made

It looks dressier because what, the leather sole? you can sand the sides for a rougher natural leather look, which isn't so dressy, if that's the concern. it's just a pair of plain toe boots made of nice solid chromexcel leather. if you spend a good amount on a pair of boots it will look nice and not so much like cheap work boots, and I can't figure out why OP only wants boots that look cheap.

and besides any of that, if you think 400 is cheap, I wonder what planet you're living on, because most people think 400 is way more than they would ever pay. I'm not saying you're wrong that boots go much more expensive than that, because they do; I'm not denying that there is a quality difference, because there often is. But it's nonsense to say that everything which isn't expensive is cheap. There's a middle ground.

pic related, more cheap boots